Movie Review The Dukes of Hazzard

Dukes of Hazzard (2005) 

Directed by Jay Chandrasekhar

Written by Gy Waldron, John O'Brien 

Starring Johnny Knoxville, Seann William Scott, Jessica Simpson 

Release Date August 5th, 2005 

Published August 5th, 2005 

Critics like myself are a pretentious lot. However when the majority of critics write a negative review of a TV remake like the Dukes of Hazzard it is not out of artistic pretension. Indeed the film in the classic critical sense is not very good. However there is something about Dukes that even this jaded and pretentious critic found very entertaining. Maybe it's nostalgia, I was a fan of the show as a kid, or maybe it's the enthusiasm of its creators and actors that comes off the screen in waves. Whatever it is, I liked Dukes of Hazzard.

Bo and Luke Duke (Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott) are good ol' boy cousins tearing around Hazzard County, Georgia in their bright orange '69 Charger, The General Lee. Whether they are running moonshine (do southerners still make moonshine?) for their Uncle Jesse (Willie Nelson), or defending the honor of their cousin Daisy (Jessica Simpson) in a bar fight, the Duke boys always seem to be getting in trouble.

The latest bit of trouble the boys are in once again involves their nemesis Sheriff Roscoe P. Coltrane (M.C Gainey) and his boss, County Commissioner, Boss Hogg (Burt Reynolds). In a plot that feels directly lifted from the TV series, Boss Hogg is stealing the land of Hazzard County farmers, including the Duke's farm, so he can strip mine for coal buried beneath it. Only the Duke boys can stop Boss Hogg by winning a dirt track car race and generally creating havoc throughout the land in the General Lee.

Director Jay Chandrasekhar (Super Troopers, Club Dread) is really not much of a director in the classic sense. He has no distinctive directorial style, no real sense of rhythm in his storytelling and, in the case of this film, leaves much of the real direction to the stunt coordinators who filmed the car chases that compose some 90 percent of the film.

That said, Chandrasekhar does have a talent for creating a good time atmosphere. For all of his lack of artistry Chandrasekhar in his previous films with his comedy team Broken Lizard created atmospheres that made obvious just how much fun both cast and crew had making the movies. That same enthusiasm radiates from Dukes of Hazzard in the joyous performances of stars Johnny Knoxville and Seann William Scott as well as the supporting cast that includes David Koechner from Anchorman and Broken Lizard member Kevin Heffernan.

Maybe the most important element of why I enjoyed Dukes of Hazzard is the nostalgia factor. Mr. Chandrasekhar's fealty to the TV show is astonishing. Where TV remakes like The Honeymooners and Bewitched ditched the source material, Dukes Of Hazzard embraces it's TV parentage with zeal. The plot is seemingly a direct lift from the show and Mr. Chandrasekhar's Hazzard County almost perfectly mimics the Hazard of memory. This won't do anything for non-fans but if you loved the show like I did as a kid you can't help but get caught up in the nostalgic vibe.

If I have one major issue with the film it is the casting of Jessica Simpson as Daisy Duke. There is an insidiousness to her casting and the way she is used in the film. Ms. Simpson seems taken advantage of, something that may just be my perception based on her well-cultivated dim bulb persona. Ms. Simpson simply cannot act-- not that a film that is ninety percent car chases requires acting-- but I really felt that she did not know what she had gotten herself into. The script and direction never ask her to perform anything close to acting, rather she is simply paraded in front of the camera in skimpy outfits as if she were there as an advertisement for a strip club rather than an actual member of the cast.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed ogling Ms. Simpson as much as anyone but the exploitation left me with a sickening feeling. Nevertheless, when Dukes of Hazzard is working its good time vibe as opposed to its exploitative one, it's a whole lot of fun. The car chases are spectacular and most of all the car itself is spectacular. Dukes of Hazzard is not a great movie, but as a nostalgic waste of a Friday night, it works.

Movie Review Pacific Rim Uprising

Pacific Rim Uprising (2018) 

Directed by Steven S. DeKnight 

Written by Emily Carmichael, Kira Snyder, T.S Nowlin 

Starring Scott Eastwood, John Boyega, Cailee Spaeny, Charlie Day, Adria Arjona 

Release Date March 23rd, 2018 

Published March 27th, 2018 

Pacific Rim is from that part of Oscar winning director Guillermo Del Toro that we’ve all agreed to ignore, alongside the Hellboy movies and Mimic. It’s not that Pacific Rim is bad; rather that it is a tad undignified compared to the awards caliber work he gave us before moving to Hollywood and now his Oscar winning triumph, The Shape of Water. It will always be better to remember the visionary work of Pan’s Labyrinth and ignoring the time he played with his toys on a multi-multi-multi-million dollar budget.

Pacific Rim Uprising is, no surprise, not directed by Del Toro as he was distracted from his toys by a lovely love story that happened to be about a woman and fish Jesus. Del Toro has leant his name to the marketing of the Pacific Rim sequel as Executive Producer but it is television veteran Stephen S. DeKnight playing with Del Toro’s this time and having a great deal more fun than we are watching him play.

John Boyega is front and center as Jake, the star of Pacific Rim Uprising, taking the mantel from Charlie Hunnam and Idris Elba whose characters have been killed off screen as we join the story. Elba’s Stacker Pentacost was Jake’s father and Jake was his constant failure. Jake was a washout from the Jaeger patrol, Jaeger’s are the giant robots humans pilot in the battle against Kaiju, giant monsters from another dimension.

Jake is brought back into the fold by his adopted sister Mako (Rinko Kikuchi, one of the few returning cas tmembers from the 2013 film) who wants him to train the next generation of Jaeger pilots alongside his former partner turned rival, Ranger Lambert (Scott Eastwood, trying hard to out-squint his legendary daddy). Among the new Jaeger pilot recruits is a young named Amara (Callee Spaeny), who built her very own Jaeger out of scrap.

Also back for the sequel is Charlie Day who was arguably the most entertaining aspect of the original Pacific Rim. Day is also the most entertaining part of Pacific Rim Uprising but not for the right reasons. Day’s arc in Pacific Rim Uprising is so ungodly silly it almost makes the movie a candidate for ‘So Bad It’s Good’ status. Unfortunately, most of Pacific Rim 2 is so clumsy and shambling that even ironic appreciation eludes the movie.

Director Stephen DeKnight, who, it should be noted, did remarkable work on TV’s Buffy the Vampire Slayer and its spinoff, Angel, fails to take control of Pacific Rim Uprising. Instead of establishing a tone that is funny and in tune with the silliness of the first film, Pacific Rim Uprising plays everything straight and the thin premise can’t bear the weight of the emotion Uprising wishes it were evoking in audiences.

Note to the makers of giant robot vs giant monster movies in the future: make it funny. We are never not going to laugh at this stuff so lean into the pitch and stop trying to make us take your story or characters seriously. Pacific Rim does try to packs in some jokes, mostly at the expense of Boyega’s Jake’s inflated ego, but the insistent action score and the self-serious performances of everyone else in Pacific Rim Uprising keeps everything flat and mirthless.

It seems impossible that one could watch a giant robot versus giant monster movie and not have fun but here we are with Pacific Rim Uprising. This sequel is at times genuinely unpleasant. The one big laugh the film gets is one that the makers likely did not intend and the fight scenes that were skillful and silly in the original are miserably clumsy exercises in sub-Transformers, derivative, CGI slop.

Movie Review The Death of Stalin

The Death of Stalin (2018) 

Directed by Armando Iannucci 

Written by Armando Iannucci 

Starring Steve Buscemi, Simon Russell, Michael Palin, Jeffrey Tambor 

Release Date March 9th, 2018 

Published November 5th, 2018 

The Death of Stalin is the latest work from the genius of Armando Iannucci. The man who brought us the brilliant absurdity of HBO’s Veep has crafted a truly daft history of Russian leadership in the wake of the passing of legendary monster Josef Stalin in 1953. The Machiavellian machinations of Stalin’s cabinet, including future Russian leader Nikita Khrushchev have both an authenticity and an absurdity that only a master of form and tone such as Iannucci can deliver. 

The Death of Stalin features a cast stuffed with some of the most talented English actors in the world. First there is Adrian McLoughlin as Josef Stalin in his final days. McLoughlan isn’t around long, as the title would indicate, but his Stalin is nevertheless a figure of benign menace, signing off on hundreds of deaths a day of dissidents and potential dissidents while forcing his cabinet members to jockey for position in his favor. 

Most prominently, there is Nikita Khrushchev (Steve Buscemi) who is in deep competition with Lavrenti Beria (Simon Russell Beale) for Stalin’s affections. Both of them are somehow behind the sniveling Georgi Malenkov (Jeffrey Tambor) in the leadership line, though each assumes they can take control of Georgi as needed to get their way. Also weighing in is Vyacheslav Molotov (Michael Palin) whose support both Beria and Khrushchev covet. 

The casting is impeccable and extends to the brilliant Jason Isaacs as the head of the military, Rupert Friend as Stalin’s drunken, moronic son, Vasily, and Olga Kurylenko as a dissident pianist who plays a key role in the plotting between Khrushchev and Beria. Her role isn’t large but Kurylenko invests it with passion. She, along with Andrea Riseborough, playing Stalin's daughter, are the only women in the movie and both are inspired choices for their roles. 

The trick of The Death of Stalin is the tricky tone of the script which feels at once authentic and absurd. The key is finding the absurd within the authentic and Iannucci does that brilliantly, especially with an opening gag involving another brilliant character actor, Paddy Considine. As the film opens, Comrade Stalin is listening to a live performance on Moscow radio of a live band. Stalin decides he wants a recording of the performance but the performance has not been recorded. 

Immediately we sense how dangerous this moment is for Considine. It’s all in structure. We’ve seen Stalin’s death lists being signed and death squads being spread across the city. Considine’s producer has been told without it being said that if he can’t reproduce the broadcast he will be killed. So, he kidnaps what’s left of the audience and the band and sets about having the concert performed again under the threat of death for everyone from the band to the ignorant citizens Considine wrangles off the streets to fill in for missing audience members. 

It’s a masterfully dark gag and one that sets the darkly humorous tone for what is to come in The Death of Stalin. Iannucci appears to take many parts of this story quite seriously and allows the absurdity to arise from the bizarrely dire circumstances. Take Palin’s Molotov, a brilliantly doddering character, Molotov praised Stalin for seeming to have murdered his wife only to have her returned to him alive by Beria who has kept her under wraps just in case he needed her to bargain. 

The scene where she is returned is a Noises Off style gag wherein Khrushchev arrives at his home to scheme against Beria only to have Beria show up and just as Molotov is talking about how his wife deserved to die for criticizing Stalin, she is brought in the door and he welcomes her home, only to then make a running gag about how she deserved the fate that Stalin had assigned her even as he’s happy she’s home. 

My description doesn’t do justice to Pailin’s brilliantly absurd performance. He along with Buscemi are truly stand outs in this ridiculously talented ensemble. The two of them appear to have been ready built for Iannucci’s ingeniously dark and hysterical style of storytelling. Buscemi is particularly adept at switching from comedy to seriousness at the drop of a hat and without losing the complex rhythm of the story. 

Movie Review: Best F(r)iends Starring Tommy Wiseau

Best F(r)iends Volume 1 (2018) 

Directed by Justin McGregor 

Written by Greg Sestero

Starring Greg Sestero, Tommy Wiseau 

Release Date March 30th, 2018 

Published March 27th, 2018 

“If it weren’t for my horse, I wouldn’t have spent that year in college” – Lewis Black

This brilliant non-sequitur line from comedian Lewis Black ran through my head more than once during the duration of “Best F(r)iends,” the new collaboration from “The Room” co-stars Tommy Wiseau and Greg Sestero. Where Mr. Black’s non-sequitur was the result of a brilliantly orchestrated anecdote, one which contained a beginning, middle and an end, “Best F(r)iends” plays like one, unending, logic free gag that lasts nearly two hours.

Written by Sestero, “Best F(r)iends” stars Tommy Wiseau as the owner of a mortuary, maybe, or perhaps an independent morgue… if such a thing exists. As the owner of the morgue Wiseau’s Harvey invites Sestero’s homeless man, Jon, to come work for him… sort of. Harvey appears to be bereft of friendship though for me to say that’s why he opens up to Jon would be reading a lot into the character on my part as Wiseau gives Harvey little inner life.

After seeing a story in the Wall Street Journal about gold and silver prices, Jon gets the idea to steal a cache of gold and silver teeth that Harvey has collected from corpses over his many years as a mortician. Harvey has collected so much tooth scrap over the years that he has a small fortune. How will Harvey react to finding out his new friend stole from him? You will have to see “Best F(r)iends” to find out.

It’s strange to say but I am deeply concerned about spoilers for “Best F(r)iends,” more so than I am normally regarding a movie I am reviewing. And yet, I can’t honestly say what I would be spoiling. “Best F(r)iends is so ludicrously incomprehensibly incompetent that I don’t know that I could ‘spoil’ anything about it and yet I don’t want to chance it with too much description. I say ludicrously, incomprehensibly incompetent but that is not me saying that “Best F(r)iends is bad, not by a long shot.

In fact, “Best F(r)iends” is one of the best movie going experiences of my career. I watched “Best F(r)iends” with a very small audience at a preview screening and we had an incredible time being completely baffled, appalled and wildly entertained by this ungodly mess of a movie. Somehow, despite the weight of expectations brought on by the cult success of “The Room,” arguably the greatest bad movie of all time, “Best F(r)iends” manages to recapture the unique and wonderful qualities that have made “The Room” an indelible part of popular sub-culture.

I genuinely have no clue as to whether director Justin MacGregor, working from the script by Greg Sestero, is the world’s greatest prank artist or a severely incompetent clone of his leading man, Tommy Wiseau. “Best F(r)iends” exists in this incredible uncanny valley between art and disaster and Mr. MacGregor rides the line between loving send-up and honest badness brilliantly.

A scene early on in “Best F(r)iends” has Greg and Tommy playing basketball outside the mortuary and the echoes of “The Room” are inescapable, enough so that you allow yourself to think the movie is self-aware parody. Then things take another crazy turn. MacGregor keeps employing unnecessary and off-putting camera tricks, something an amateur might try if they were trying to use a film camera for the first time and was wondering what each of the buttons were for.

“Best F(r)iends” has no scene to scene continuity. Scenes happen, normal dialogue is pitched with bizarre non-sequiturs interrupting the flow and then the next scene begins as if what we’ve seen had been completely forgotten. “The Room” played in a similar fashion and again the movie opens the door to the idea of self-awareness and then it turns again into some seemingly improvised nonsense.

All of this reads as a negative review, but I don’t mean for it to be negative. I legitimately LOVE “Best F(r)iends.” The incomprehensible aspects of the movie are the best parts. The WTF moments come from the very beginning and never let up. Dead clowns, underground stolen teeth rings, basketball, rubber masks for the living and the dead, scars that appear, fade, and appear again, are sprinkled throughout this gloriously, hilariously nonsensical movie.

You have to be a fan of “The Room” and “The Disaster Artist” to enjoy “Best F(r)iends.” If you aren’t already on the wavelength of ironically adoring the Tommy Wiseau mythos, you will not understand the appeal of “Best F(r)ends.” If you don’t love watching a bad movie and laughing at them with your best friends, you will not get the appeal of “Best F(r)iends.”

In fact, the biggest part of the appeal of “Best F(r)iends” is the feeling of inclusion, of being in on a joke that only a few people understand. When “Best F(r)iends” ended, my small preview audience could not stop quoting the movie together. It was ours; the jokes belonged to each of us and only to us. We wanted nothing more than to share that joke with other in the know fans of Tommy Wiseau.

Regardless of the quality of Tommy Wiseau and Greg Sestero’s art, they are bringing people together. The bizarre anti-quality of “Best F(r)iends” appeals to this wonderful niche of likeminded people who can’t help but point and laugh but also find genuine pathos and joy in the effort made toward something so failing. “Best F(r)iends” is a rollercoaster of emotions ranging from confusion to adoration before settling into a spent bewilderment by the time it reaches an ending.

When I found out that this was only part one of “Best F(r)iends” I was more excited about this news than anything related to a super-hero or sci-fi franchise. That’s how much fun “Best F(r)iends' ' truly is for the cult of Tommy and Greg. I am anticipating part two of “Best F(r)iends” in the same way I anticipated “The Phantom Menace” before we found out what a disappointment that movie was.

“Best F(r)iends” part 1 debuts Friday, March 30th and is playing in theaters nationwide for one night only. Part 2 is coming and June and I want to buy my ticket right now! In fact, I want to watch both films back to back and perhaps watch them again just to see if I can finally determine whether they are an elaborate, arty prank, or a genuine failed attempt at making a real movie.

Movie Review: Colossal

Colossal (2017) 

Directed by Nacho Vigalondo 

Written by Nacho Vigalondo 

Starring Anne Hathaway, Jason Sudeikis, Dan Stevens, Tim Blake Nelson, Austin Stowell 

Release Date April 7th, 2017 

Published April 7th, 2017

As metaphors go, Godzilla has seen his fair share of interpretations. While most often Godzilla is a stand in for nuclear age mismanagement, the big guy has also been used to further environmental messages, anti-war messages and in his latest and most unique incarnation, in the comic-drama “Colossal,” Godzilla stands in for the emotional trauma people can inflict on others. As unique as “Colossal” is in the interpretation of the legendary movie monster it does adhere with the idea that the humans are nearly as monstrous as the monster we created.

Gloria (Anne Hathaway) is a mess. She has no direction, no job and few prospects. Oh, and Gloria has a serious problem with alcohol. Gloria’s issues finally come to head when her live-in boyfriend Tim (Dan Stevens) kicks her to the curb. With nowhere to go, Gloria returns to her childhood home, recently abandoned by her parents, and squats on mom and dad’s dime, eventually finding a job at a bar owned by her childhood friend Oscar (Jason Sudeikis).

I say that Oscar is Gloria’s friend but as the story of “Colossal” plays out the dynamic between Oscar and Gloria will evolve in some very unexpected ways. Unexpected is a hallmark of “Colossal” which comes to find that Gloria’s many, many issues have manifested through some sort of portal that links her thoughts and actions to a Godzilla like creature that wreaks havoc in South Korea each time Gloria goes a little too far in her self-centered partying.

This is no dream sequence in “Colossal.” The story here, crafted by veteran Spanish filmmaker Nacho Vigalondo, manifests Godzilla as a real monster that does attack South Korea and mimics the actions of Gloria who decides to turn her life around so that she can avoid killing thousands of people each time she gets drunk and rowdy. Oscar has his own connection to this unique manifestation but that would be far too spoiler heavy to reveal here.

“Collossal” is not at all the movie it appears to be in advertisements and trailers. The marketing for “Colossal” plays up the comic aspects of this story despite the comedy being almost incidental to the psycho-drama that the film becomes as it goes along. There is a darkness and complexity to “Colossal” that producers have apparently been attempting to hide from audiences on the assumption that people aren’t interested in a unique premise, they just want to think they are going to laugh.

As insulting as the marketing of “Colossal” unquestionably is, the film itself is rare and authentic, a work of a wonderfully inventive filmmaker. I am, in all honesty, not familiar with the work of Nacho Vigalondo. That said, “Colossal” is a fantastic introduction to a filmmaker with a unique vision and approach to storytelling. This is just the kind of original and exciting filmmaking that I hope we can encourage more of in the future.

Movie Review Smurfs The Lost Village

Smurfs The Lost Village (2017) 

Directed by Kelly Asbury 

Written by Pamela Ribon, Stacy Harmon

Starring Demi Lovato, Mandy Patinkin, Joe Manganiello, Danny Pudi, Meghan Trainor, Jake Johnson 

Release Date April 7th, 2017

Published April 7th, 2017 

Nothing against the wonderfully talented Neil Patrick Harris, but I was very happy not to see him in the latest iteration of The Smurfs franchise. For all his immense talent, Harris never belonged in a Smurfs movie, nor did anything else from real world New York for that matter. Taking The Smurfs out of Smurf Village to the non-animated New York City was a terribly unnecessary gimmick that drowned the first cinematic outings of our beloved blue heroes.

Back in the animated world of the forest and Smurfs Village, the new animated adventure “Smurfs: The Lost Village” is not all that much better than the previous two Smurfs outings but better enough to warrant taking note.

Smurfette (Demi Lovato) is struggling with her identity. For those not familiar with the background of the only female Smurf, Smurfette was created by Gargamel as a honeytrap intended to lead him to the Smurf Village where he hoped to capture Smurfs and steal their magic. Fortunately, the Smurfs won Smurfette over and instead of helping Gargamel, here voiced by Rain Wilson, she became a member of their family.

Still, despite the love and support of all of the Smurfs, the guidance from Papa Smurf (Mandy Patinkin), the friendship of Hefty (Joe Manganiello), Brainy (Danny Pudi) and Clumsy (Jack McBrayer) and the acceptance of the rest of the Smurfs, Smurfette can’t shake the sense that there is something missing from her story. When she gets lost in the forest while playing with her friends she encounters for the first time a Smurf unlike her brothers and a new adventure is begun.

The Lost Village of the title is a village filled with female Smurfs including Smurf’s voiced by Julia Roberts, Michelle Rodriguez, Ellie Kemper and popstar Meghan Trainor. Naturally, there are around 100 of these female Smurfs because there are around 100 of the boy Smurfs and reinforcing gender norms is kind of part of the package for this film. I will leave it to you to decide if you want to take offense to that or not, I merely took note of it.

As I mentioned earlier, this version of Smurfs The Lost Village is only a minor improvement over the first two live action/animated hybrids. I’m very happy they ditched the live action but I wish they could have added a few more laughs to the mix. Smurfs: The Lost Village is not very with laughs coming a distant second to the visual razzle dazzle and a couple of modestly rousing action set pieces, the best involving a magical river and a very small raft.

It’s just unfortunate that the film lacks laughter. I could count on one hand, not using all the fingers on that hand, the number of laugh out loud moments in Smurfs: The Lost Village. The film comes from director Kelly Asbury who garnered a great deal more laughter from his work on Shrek 2 and more action from his Spirit: Stallion of the Cimarron. Here, Asbury never seems to find the right tone for The Smurfs, the action is fine but the Smurfs isn’t an adventure series, it’s a children’s comedy and this isn’t very funny.

And when I say Smurfs: The Lost Village isn’t funny; I am being very serious. The movie takes a turn in the 3rd act that I will say is quite bold and unexpected but may have the child core of the Smurfs audience very upset. Parents will want to be prepared, the dramatic turn of the third act of The Lost Village will be one that young children may be deeply affected by.

So, do I recommend Smurfs The Lost Village? I didn’t hate the movie but I don’t think it’s very good. It needs more laughs, the last act is borderline disturbing for young audiences but, for the most part the film is inoffensive and may be quite funny to a child, if rather tedious to an adult. The last act could be a little scary for the youngest moviegoers, but this is a Smurfs movie so you can trust that the scarring is minor and well healed by the ending.

Movie Review The Belko Experiment

The Belko Experiment (2017) 

Directed by Greg McLean 

Written by James Gunn

Starring John Gallagher Jr, Adria Arjona, John C. McGinley 

Release Date March 17th 

Published March 17th 

If you like mindless splatter and especially if you like exploding heads, “The Belko Experiment” is the movie for you, if not the movie for me. Though pretending toward a satire of life in a mundane office turned upside down by the absolute most violent of downsizing, “The Belko Experiment” is far too shallow for satire and far too pointless for me to care about.

John Gallagher Jr, last seen opposite crazy John Goodman in “10 Cloverfield Lane” is Mike, the office nice guy at a seemingly typical American office. Except, this office isn’t in America. Despite being populated by an assortment of run of the mill office types, this office is in Bogota, Columbia, of all places and though nondescript, the setting creates unease right off the bat.

Why are a bunch of workaday American office drones working in one of the most dangerous cities in the world, is a question that lends some early suspense to “The Belko Experiment.” It’s a clever bit of shorthand that, if you had not seen the trailer and weren’t aware of the premise of the film, you would certainly take note of the setting.

Mike’s day is mostly ordinary; he flirts with his secret office romance, Leandra (Emerald City’s Adria Arjona), he confronts the office creep, Wendell (John C. McGinley) and shares an awkward moment with the bigwig COO Barry (Tony Goldwyn) who catches him in a moment with Leandra. Everything is mundane until a heretofore unheard of public address speaker screeches to life and informs everyone that this will not be just another day at the office.

The voice on the PA instructs that the office workers must kill their co-workers or the voice will do it for them in the form of a bomb in everyone’s neck. An indication that The Belko Corporation had this bloody endgame in mind all along is that they convinced their employees to get trackers in their necks to aid them in case they get kidnapped in Bogota. The implants are now revealed to be bombs and a gruesome end is ensured for just about everyone.

“The Belko Experiment” is a spiritual cousin to the “Saw” franchise. Both films center on God-like figures setting other people up to kill or be killed in a bizarre social experiment murder spree. The difference between the “Belko” and “Saw” however is the point and purpose, “Saw” has a point and purpose and “Belko” doesn’t.

As gruesome as “Saw” unquestionably is, Jigsaw is a strangely benevolent figure. Each of Jigsaw’s victims has the chance to survive if they put aside their self-centeredness and work as a team with their fellow captives. The only reason Jigsaw victims die is because they are out for themselves and make selfish choices. There is no such equivalent in “The Belko Experiment.” This film is ONLY an exploitation splatter flick with modest, mostly unrealized pretensions toward social satire.

Is “The Belko Experiment” a good exploitation-splatter flick? Yeah, if you like that sort of thing it’s fair to say this is on the higher end of that low-end genre. The film is clever at building and sustaining tension throughout and the gore is believably visceral but it’s far too pointless for my taste. None of the blood and guts matter. The characters are far too shallow for them to matter beyond how well their heads explode.

If well rendered exploding heads is enough for you, then by all means, enjoy “The Belko Experiment.”

Movie Review Table 19

Table 19 (2017) 

Directed by Jeffrey Blitz

Written by Jay Duplass, Mark Duplass 

Starring Anna Kendrick, Wyatt Russell, Stephen Merchant, Lisa Kudrow, Craig Robinson 

Release Date March 13th, 2017

Published March 29th, 2017

Undoubtedly someone will relate to the idea of being invited to a wedding where they are not expected to attend. At least, that is what the producers of the new comedy “Table 19” would like to think. The premise here is that several people have been invited to a wedding where they were just expected to pick a gift off the registry and send that in with their regards. Instead, each of these oddballs decides to attend the wedding and wind up at the table of misfit guests.

Anna Kendrick stars in “Table 19” as Eloise, the former Maid of Honor turned pariah after she was dumped by the Best Man who is also the Bride’s brother, Teddy (Wyatt Russell). Eloise has backed out of the wedding several times since the breakup only to show up on the day of the wedding with everyone concerned she might make a scene. To mitigate her potential meltdown, Eloise is placed as far away as possible, at Table 19.

Joining Eloise are a random assemblage of guests including Jerry and Bina Kepp, (Craig Robinson and Lisa Kudrow) business acquaintances of the Bride’s father, Jo (June Squibb), the Bride’s former Nanny, Renzo (Tony Revolori) an awkward teenager, and Walter (Stephen Merchant), a business associate of the Groom’s father. Walter is fresh out of prison and hoping no one knows about his prison stay or how he got there; why he came to the wedding or was invited is anyone’s guess.

“Table 19” has the appearance of a movie but not the story of a movie, at least not a good one. At times the film feels like each actor was given one idea for a character and then told to improvise some comic situation. Unfortunately, despite a very talented and game cast, no one, not even the lovely Anna Kendrick finds much beyond one note to play and that one note is rarely ever funny.

Stephen Merchant is a very funny and talented man but his Walter is an absolute comic dead zone. Walter’s one note is that he is just out of prison and hoping no one notices. Unfortunately, he doesn’t know how to lie properly so he keeps stumbling into awkward and contrived conversations that the makers of “Table 19” apparently believed were hilarious. They are not hilarious, tedious is the more apt description as Merchant plays the same awkward gag over and over until you wish his character would just leave the rest of the movie alone.

Craig Robinson and Lisa Kudrow have a slightly different problem, they are way more interesting than the one note characters they are given to play. As a married couple seemingly headed for a breakup, Robinson and Kudrow at times seem to border on a much better movie, a more European style character comedy where we might explore their marital problems with a wedding in the background. I kept dreaming of that far funnier movie while “Table 19” forced Kudrow to carry one joke through the movie, she has the same color jacket as the catering staff. Ha Ha.

And finally, there is Kendrick who should be the star here but is instead treated as a member of a wacky ensemble. Unfortunately, that ensemble isn’t funny or even all that interesting while Kendrick is her usual appealing self, her charisma and beauty calling for our full attention while the film forces us to endure her one-note table mates to ever more unfunny situations and dialogue.

I had high hopes for “Table 19.” Anna Kendrick, to me, is a genuine movie star and I wanted to see where she might lead this story. Sadly, the wacky, one note ensemble strands her in the role of straight-woman to a group of terribly unfunny side characters. There is a very funny Anna Kendrick wedding comedy trapped inside of “Table 19” trying to get out but is entirely thwarted by the filmmakers. 

The Bride's parents were right, these wedding guests should have just stayed home.

Movie Review: Collide

Collide (2017) 

Directed by Eran Creevy 

Written by F. Scott Frazier 

Starring Nicholas Hoult, Ben Kingsley, Anthony Hopkins, Felicity Jones 

Release Date February 24th, 2017 

Published February 24th, 2017 

“Collide,” starring Nicholas Hoult, Anthony Hopkins and Ben Kingsley has been sitting on a shelf for three years. Do I need to tell you much more about “Collide” than that fact? Okay, fine, movie reviews are required to be more than two lines so I will do my best to discuss the merits of “Collide” but again, if you understand the nature of the Hollywood release schedule, the fact that a movie has sat on a shelf for so long is very, very telling.

“Collide” stars Nicholas Hoult as Casey, an American living in Germany and making a living as a small-time drug dealer. Casey decides to give up drug dealing when he meets and falls in love with Juliette (Felicity Jones), a fellow American expat turned bartender. Things are looking up for the young couple in love until it is revealed that Juliette has a severe movie disease and needs an expensive plot point to save her life.

To get the money for Juliette’s transplant Casey takes a job from Geran (Ben Kingsley), his former drug dealing boss. The job pays just enough to pay for Juliette’s surgery (KISMET!) but it is also very dangerous. Casey and a partner must steal millions of dollars in cocaine from Germany’s biggest drug dealer, Hagen Kahl (Anthony Hopkins). The plan is silly and overstuffed and naturally doesn’t go as planned. Kahl figures out who Casey is, takes Juliette hostage and the stage is set for a lot of shouting into cell phones and car chases only slightly noisier than the shouting.

Speaking of shouting, does Ben Kingsley remember a time when he wasn’t shouting? Once a well thought of character actor, Kingsley has receded well into parody. Many critics, myself included, used to joke about Kingsley simply nabbing paychecks by accepting every role he’s offered. It’s not funny anymore. Sir Ben has morphed from the actor we laughed along with as he hammed his way through “Bloodrayne” or “The Last Legion” to that actor we pity for having lost his touch.

Anthony Hopkins hasn’t quite sunk to Sir Ben’s depths but he is not far off. Hopkins gives Kingsley a run for his money in the not giving a single damn about his performance. Hopkins can still put a bit of sizzle into his hammy monologues but “Collide” contains far too many instances of Hopkins monologuing just to keep himself awake in a scene.

Poor Nicholas Hoult is caught in the crossfire of the senior hams and is rendered bland in comparison. In his desperate attempt to take seriously the silliness he’s given to deliver and endure; Hoult is amiable but wholly defeated. It is Yeoman's work to take seriously the over-complicated silliness of “Collide” and it is hard to fault Hoult, an otherwise handsome and welcome presence, for being tired and overwhelmed.

Full disclosure, “Collide” was delayed because it’s original distributor, Relativity Media, went out of business and not necessarily because it isn’t any good. Of course, if the film were good it likely would have been bought out and released sometime in the last three years. Why the film is in theaters nationwide now is a mystery likely linked to a contractual obligation of some sort.

Movie Review Split

Split (2017)

Directed by M. Night Shyamalan

Written by M. Night Shyamalan 

Starring James McAvoy, Anya Taylor Joy, Haley Lu Richardson, Betty Buckley

Release Date January 20th, 2017

Published January 19th, 2017

Despite positive notice for 2015’s The Visit, the belief was that before Split, M Night Shyamalan was done as a big time director. Split changes all of that and puts the former twist-meister back on the A-list. Split was a stunner, a film that quickened the pace of the usual Shyamalan piece while maintaining the kind of suspense and tension that made Shyamalan the supposed modern day Hitchcock.

Split stars James McAvoy stars in Split as Kevin, a man with Dissociative Identity Disorder. It’s hard to know which of Kevin’s numerous personalities is going to show up. Kevin’s psychiatrist, Dr Fletcher (Betty Buckley), has grown used to talking with Barry, Kevin’s effeminately homosexual personality, who acts as a spokesperson for what he has come to call ‘The Horde,’ a nickname for the 23 known personalities, part of Kevin’s Dissociative Identity Disorder.

Lately however, Barry doesn’t seem like Barry and Dr Fletcher begins to recognize Dennis, arguably the most dangerous of Kevin’s personalities. Barry has been emailing Dr Fletcher at night with concerns about Dennis and The Horde and then downplaying his late night emails when he talks to her during sessions. The dynamic chemistry between McAvoy and the veteran Betty Buckley is fantastic and makes the mind games between the two are exciting and riveting.

Indeed, Dennis does prove to be dangerous. With the encouragement of Patricia, another of Kevin’s Horde, Dennis has taken hostages. In a mall parking lot Dennis murdered a man and took his daughter and two of her friends as hostages. Dennis and Patricia plan to sacrifice the teens to a creature they call The Beast, a heretofore unknown 24th persona for Kevin. The Beast is indeed a terror as Kevin’s very body chemistry changes to match his personality and as The Beast you can imagine the horrors to come.

The precision of James McAvoy’s performance cannot be understated. This is one of the most remarkable acting jobs I have ever witnessed. Sure, most actors put on and take off many different personas during their career but rarely are they asked to create distinct characters inside of one movie. McAvoy sells each personality as if they are the lead in their own movie and each persona is distinct and provides another layer to the thriller.

Perhaps the most important of these personas is Hedwig, a nine year old boy. Hedwig has the heavy lifting of getting us through the second act and into the third. It is as Hedwig that McAvoy spends time interacting with Anya Taylor Joy, Haley Lu Richardson and Jessica Sula as the kidnapped teenagers. Hedwig has a load of exposition to unfurl in this time as the movie lays the groundwork for the reveal of The Beast and he is a fantastic vessel for this. We’re never bored by the exposition because we are transfixed by McAvoy’s take on a 9 year old in an adult body.

Anya Taylor Joy, one of the stars of the equally ingenious The Witch before taking on this role, is a brilliant foil for Kevin aka The Horde. No innocent herself, Joy’s Casey has flashbacks amidst the kidnapping plot and the payoff to these flashbacks is every bit as shocking as the final reveal of The Beast. The empathy she offers to Kevin’s varying personalities is a terrific counterpoint to the menace of Dennis, Patricia and The Beast.

Split is one of my favorite movies of this young century and that it was folded into the universe of Unbreakable is a tasty cherry on top of an already great dessert of a movie. The final reveal of Bruce Willis in Split was a jaw-dropper for those of us who saw it opening weekend and then rushed home to spoil it on the internet with our speculation on how a sequel to Unbreakable featuring Kevin would play out.

It was as if we were part of the market testing of an Unbreakable and we didn’t even know it. The choice felt organic at the end, after we’ve seen Kevin become the almost supernatural figure, The Beast and considered how one might oppose such a figure. Seeing Bruce Willis was amazing in that moment and the catharsis of feeling the pieces of Glass fall into place was a terrific Adrenalin rush following what was already a great thrill in Split.

Movie Review Rango

Rango (2011) 

Directed by Gore Verbinski 

Written by John Logan 

Starring Johnny Depp, Bill Nighy, Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin, Alfred Molina, Timothy Olyphant 

Release Date March 4th, 2011

Published March 3rd, 2011 

2011 has seen very great movies. For me, the best film of the year, before the Oscar bait stuff arrives in October, November and December, is the animated Johnny Depp comedy "Rango." This endlessly inventive animated feature stunned me back in March of this year and has lingered in the back of my mind ever since.

"Rango '' stars Johnny Depp as the title character, a movie loving pet chameleon who gets lost in the desert after falling out of the back of a car. After meeting a Possum named Roadkill (Alfred Molina) Rango wanders off into the desert in search of the spirit of the west.

Eventually, after being chased by a hawk and passing out from the heat, Rango meets Beans (Isla Fisher), an iguana from a western town called Dirt. Through a series of mishaps Rango becomes the sheriff of Dirt and is tasked to stare down Rattlesnake Jake (Bill Nighy) while uncovering a scam to steal the city's water supply.

"Rango" was directed by Gore Verbinski, best known for the "Pirates of the Caribbean" franchise, and written by John Logan, writer of "Gladiator" and "The Aviator." Together, Verbinski and Logan have cooked up an animated western that gathers influence not merely from the obvious sources, the westerns of Clint Eastwood and Gary Cooper, but also the HBO series "Deadwood" (Timothy Olyphant voices a mysterious character known as the Spirit of the West) and even the forgotten Lee Marvin classic "Cat Ballou" and the epic "Once Upon a Time in the West."

The references are literate and lively and will delight western fans to no end. But the mimicry in Rango doesn't end with the western. Rango includes nods to everything from "Star Wars" to "Raising Arizona" to "Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas" and "Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End," the last two, of course, starring Johnny Depp.

The plot of Rango turns on the same premise of the film classic "Chinatown," a corrupt man taking control of a town's water supply. Most kids won't get the reference but the key to Rango's charm is the way it keeps both kids and parents wildly entertained. While parents are cataloging the numerous references to classic and newer movies, the kids will love the cleverness of the story as well as the marvelous color and the energetic voice performances from Johnny Depp, Ned Beatty, Isla Fisher, Abigail Breslin and more.

Unlike most animated films where the voice actors are recorded over several months, often one voice at a time, the cast of Rango recorded vocals all at the same time with the cast often acting out the action of the animated characters. The lively interaction of the cast and the way the animators worked to capture the emotions of the actors in their animated characters gives Rango its unique energy.

The animation of Rango is phenomenal with bright colors, visual nods to the work of Sergio Leone, the legendary Italian master of the Spaghetti Western, and an almost Dali-esque sense of the absurd, captured especially by a dream sequence involving a floating, wind-up fish.

Rango is entertaining on multiple levels from the film encyclopedia level of movie references to the extraordinary animation and the lively, boisterous, and wildly talented voice cast led by the brilliant Johnny Depp. With these elements combined, there is no question that Rango is, thus far, the best movie of 2011.

Classic Movie Review: A Fish Called Wanda

 A Fish Called Wanda (1988) 

Directed by Charles Crichton

Written by John Cleese

Starring Jamie Lee Curtis, Kevin Kline, Michael Palin, John Cleese

Release Date July 15th, 1988 

Published July 15th, 2018

It’s so strange, sometimes movies get a reputation for genius and you hear about it and hear about it and then you see it for yourself and you wind up wondering what all of the fuss was about. That’s the case for me with A Fish Called Wanda. Yes, I had seen the movie before, back when it was on HBO in the 90’s and I think that I tried very hard to like it as much as the critics of the time seemed to like it. I liked it so I could seem smart.

A Fish Called Wanda turns 30 years old this weekend and once again I watched with the aim of wanting to like it so I could seem smart. Only this time, I am mature and confident enough to say I simply didn’t care for it. A Fish Called Wanda just doesn’t work on me. I disliked the characters, I was barely amused by the gags and Kevin Kline’s Academy Award winning supporting performance, for me, came off as forced and shrill.

A Fish Called Wanda is a comic heist movie which stars Jamie Lee Curtis as Wanda, a woman who is dating a thief named Georges Thomas, played by Tom Georgeson, a gag funnier than most in the movie. Wanda is only setting Georges up so that she and her lover, Otto (Kevin Kline) can double cross him and their other partner, Ken (Michael Palin). Georges isn’t stupid however and to insure his cut, he hides the loot until he knows he’s clear, an idea that pays off when Otto secretly turns him, unaware of where the loot actually went. 

To figure out where the loot is hidden, Wanda and Otto begin a convoluted plan surrounding Georges’ barrister, Archie Leach (John Cleese). The hope is that Otto will give Archie the location of the loot as a way to reduce his sentence after he is caught. The plan is for Wanda to seduce Archie to get him to reveal the location of the loot so that they can steal it back and leave the country. Things take a turn when Wanda develops a soft spot for Archie.

A Fish Called Wanda was directed by Charles Crichton, sort of. Though John Cleese claimed to have put his name on the co-director credit in order to allay studio fears about the fact that Crichton hadn’t worked in 23 years and was in his mid-80’s, it appears from on-set stories from Curtis and Kline that Cleese was the creative force. It was Cleese who came up with the memorable running gags about Wanda’s fetish for foreign languages and Otto’s insecurity about being called stupid.

 There are other Cleese-ian touches as well such as Archie having a wife and the two of them having separate beds ala his character on the famed British television series Fawlty Towers. Regardless of who is responsible however, not much of anything in A Fish Called Wanda got a laugh out of me. Whether it’s the door slamming, Noises-Off style gags of people running in and out of rooms and weaving elaborate lies when caught in the wrong place at the wrong time or the almost nihilistic approach to right and wrong, I found nothing appealing about A Fish Called Wanda.

The characters in A Fish Called Wanda are all terrible people, and that includes Palin’s Ken who, though he may feel guilty about a few of his evil deeds, is nevertheless as terrible as anyone else and has arguably the most notable body count in the movie, if you count dogs. The gags involving the elaborate ways in which Ken accidentally murders an old ladies three dogs is some of the ugliest humor I can recall in a supposed comedy.

We are supposed to like Ken because Palin plays him as a simpleton, a dupe who thinks he's helping his friend but is blundering his way into crime. We are supposed to either sympathize with or find funny his stuttering but it only engenders a sad sort of pity that is far from funny. A scene where Palin and Cleese finally share the screen comes late in the film, as we've anticipated seeing the Python guys together, and the scene is a wretchedly excessive scene of Palin struggling with his stutter and Cleese becoming more and more explosively irritated while trying to stay calm. There is no gag here other than Palin's stutter and it's never funny, merely insensitive. 

A Fish Called Wanda presumes its own sophistication. The filmmakers and stars appear as if they should be erudite, sophisticated players in a farce but somehow the film never earns a laugh. I shouldn’t say never, I was amused a few times, such as when Cleese dances about spouting Russian phrases while Jamie Lee Curtis writhes in ecstasy but the amusement was tempered and rare.

In his 1988 review of A Fish Called Wanda, Roger Ebert says “One of its strengths is its mean-spiritedness” and I could not disagree more. I don’t find the mean-spiritedness of A Fish Called Wanda to be a strength. It’s my least favorite thing about the movie. I don’t enjoy these odious characters and their greed and I especially don’t care for the ending that rewards each of them in some strange way.

I revere Roger Ebert which explains why, nearly 30 years ago, I watched A Fish Called Wanda and desperately attempted to like it. I wanted to seem cool to a man I would never meet. I wanted to impress this idol who didn’t know I existed via some transference of psychic energy; as if the universe might inform my hero that I was no ordinary teenage movie fan, I was a teenage movie fan who liked A Fish Called Wanda.

I still revere Roger Ebert, his writing will influence me for my lifetime but as an older man I find myself able to politely disagree. While Roger enjoyed this movie, I loathed it. I didn’t enjoy the mean-spiritedness because the characters weren’t pleasant or entertaining enough to earn it. I don’t mind a mean character winning in the end if they are charming or interesting enough and they are perhaps thumbing their nose at some societal ill. But when characters are just terrible because being terrible gets them what they want, I lose interest.

The characters of A Fish Called Wanda aren’t charming, their ugly. I don’t mind that they are criminals, I mind that they aren’t interesting or funny criminals. I don’t mind that they are killers or thieves, I mind that they aren’t charming or silly or funny killers and thieves. The characters appear as if they and what they are doing should be funny and yet I don’t laugh. I dislike these characters and thus they never become funny.

Movie Review: Who's Harry Crumb

Who's Harry Crumb (1989) 

Directed by Paul Flaherty

Written by Robert Conte, Peter Martin Wortmann

Starring John Candy, Jeffrey Jones, Annie Potts, Shawnee Smith

Release Date February 3rd, 1989

Published February 3rd, 2019 

Who’s Harry Crumb is a childhood guilty pleasure for me. This 1989 John Candy goof-around hit my 13 year old sensibilities square in the bullseye. Dorky, awkward and deeply silly, this detective spoof, for me, was peak John Candy. And that is saying something considering that John Candy was the defining comic face of my childhood. While others worshipped at the altar of the SNL crowd or Steve Martin or Eddie Murphy, John Candy was my comedian. 

Admittedly, much of John Candy’s work hasn’t aged well and Harry Crumb is a good example of that. Much of what John Candy did was variations on the big guy falls down style of humor, before Chris Farley picked up that mantle, but Who’s Harry Crumb at least wasn’t all humor based on Candy’s size. Most of Harry Crumb was based on the pure silliness of Candy’s persona, his talent for goofball antics and comic mimicry.

Who’s Harry Crumb stars John Candy as the titular detective, Harry Crumb. Hired to investigate the kidnapping of a millionaire’s daughter, Harry doesn’t know that he’s been hired specifically to screw up the case. Harry’s boss at the Crumb & Crumb detective agency, Eliot Draisen (Jeffrey Jones), specifically gave the case to Harry because Harry is the least competent detective in the agency. Eliot himself is behind the kidnapping of fashion model Jennifer Downing (Renee Coleman) and Eliot assumes that Harry can't possibly solve the case. 

Harry’s style is bizarre as he enjoys wild and elaborate costumes that he believes fool everyone when in reality, he’s fooling no one. Harry’s saving grace is Nikki (Shawnee Smith), the sister of Jennifer, the kidnapped model and the one person who believes that Harry can crack the case, if only with her help. The duo gets on the trail and despite Harry’s bizarre ways, they manage to crack a couple of leads.

No, as an adult viewer of Who’s Harry Crumb, I cannot defend this goofball nonsense. But, as a piece of loopy, childish, nostalgia, I still can’t get enough of this movie. It’s like fatty food, I know it’s not good for me, but Who’s Harry Crumb is really great junk food. It all comes back to John Candy who was among the most lovable lugs ever on the big screen. Candy, for a kid, was comic gold. His anything for a laugh approach never failed to hit me right in the funny bone. 

A scene set to Bonnie Tyler’s Holding Out for a Hero with Candy riding atop an airport staircase vehicle, chasing down the duo of Tim Thomerson and Annie Potts, is such a dumb and cliched scene but I could not stop laughing at it as a kid and the nostalgia makes it hold up for me today. If a movie today featured a similar scene I would probably complain but because it is Candy and it is Who’s Harry Crumb, I find it completely hysterical. 

A new edition of Who’s Harry Crumb is coming to DVD and Blu Ray on Tuesday and if you have young kids who love truly goofy humor based on daft characters falling down and dressing up in strange costumes, I kind of recommend this movie. It’s rated PG. Some of the costumes probably don’t hold up to modern standards of Political Correctness, but it’s hard to hold that against the movie and especially against the late Mr Candy who was always a good hearted goof.

Movie Review: Tootsie

Tootsie (1982) 

Directed by Sydney Pollack

Written by Larry Gelbart, Murray Schisgal

Starring Dustin Hoffman, Jessica Lange, Bill Murray, Teri Garr, Dabney Coleman

Release Date December 17th, 1982 

Published August 8th, 2018 

August 8th is Dustin Hoffman’s 81st birthday and while his behavior on movie sets and Broadway backstages has drawn a storm of controversy amid the Me Too movement, his movies remain indelible parts of our shared film history. One film, that has been rendered somewhat ironic given the recent revelations about Hoffman’s behavior, is Tootsie, the 1982 comedy in which Hoffman plays a struggling actor who turns to cross-dressing in order to land a breakout role on a soap opera.

One might assume that having proverbially walked a mile in women’s shoes, Dustin Hoffman might be a tad more sensitive to women behind the scenes. Regardless, Tootsie remains a fascinating, somewhat ahead of its time examination of gender roles and sensitivity. For the record, I am not well-qualified to discuss the sensitivity of Tootsie in relation to the LGBTQ issues the film skirts around, just know that I am sensitive and aware of those issues but I will be avoiding them for the most part in this review. If you want to share your opinion about the film in relation to those issues I would be happy to open a dialogue and expand this review with the input.

Tootsie tells the story of a real jerk of a New York actor named Michael Dorsey. Michael is such a pain to work with that most theater and commercial directors no longer will even entertain talking to him, let alone casting him. As his agent, George, wonderfully played by Tootsie director Sidney Pollack relays, Michael can’t even play a piece of fruit in a commercial without causing a row with the director and delaying the shoot for hours.

With few options and prospects in his ever-aging career, Michael decides to do something drastic. Having witnessed his friend and acting student, Sandy (Teri Garr), try and fail to land a role on a soap opera, Michael decides that he knows how to play that female character better than anyone. This leads Michael to put on a dress and makeup and, quite convincingly, portray an actress named Dorothy Michaels.

Here, Michael’s jerk tendencies, leavened by Dorothy’s womanhood, actually works to get him the part and eventually become a breakout character on the show. Along the way, Michael meets and begins to fall for Julie (Jessica Lange), the co-lead on the soap opera. Unfortunately, Julie doesn’t know that Michael is Dorothy and if she and everyone else were to find out, Michael would be ruined.

I’m struck by what a terrible person Michael Dorsey is. Dustin Hoffman plays Michael as a dyspeptic ladies man with a monstrous ego and self-involvement. Michael has few redeeming qualities beyond his obvious passion for performing and his loyalty to his friend, Jeff (Bill Murray), whose play Michael hopes to fund with the money he makes playing Dorothy. Other than that, Michael is a manipulative, whiny, jerk.

I say that, and yet it kind of makes the character work in a strange way. Michael is an authentic character, there is nothing indistinct about him. Michael as Dorothy becomes a slightly better person or, at least, a slightly more caring and sensitive person, seemingly by osmosis. That growth, as modest as it is, is fascinating to watch considering where the character begins the story, as the monster I have been describing.

The supporting cast of Tootsie is a group of epic scene stealers. Bill Murray’s Jeff is inspired. Murray’s deadpan earns the biggest laughs in the movie and his endless charm is evident even in limited screen time. Teri Garr is wonderful as well as Sandy, a lost soul who gravitates toward Michael’s passion enough that she isn’t entirely repelled by him. Garr’s Sandy is the one redeemable quality Michael has, his friendship with her highlights his few good qualities.

On the soap opera side of the movie we have, of course, Jessica Lange, lovely and vulnerable as Julie, Dabney Coleman, Michael’s equal in caddishness, George Gaynes as the bloviating, sexually voracious leading man and Charles Durning in easily the sweetest performance in the movie. Durning portrays Julie’s father who unwittingly begins to fall for Dorothy as Michael is using the Dorothy persona to get close to Julie.

Here is where Tootsie and I part ways. I can’t stand the film’s ending. That Julie would be willing to forgive Michael and the two to have an implied ‘happily ever after’ is far too contrived and narratively unearned. What has Michael done throughout the entirety of Tootsie to deserve to win Julie’s heart? The emotional gymnastics that we are called upon to perform in order to accept this happy ending are far too much to ask of us as an intelligent audience.

Dustin Hoffman is terribly effective at making Michael terrible in unique and fascinating ways but he’s still terrible. As impressive as his double act as Michael and Dorothy is, Michael doesn’t learn or grow all that much in the guise of Dorothy. And that’s not even mentioning the fact that Dorothy is inherently a deception and not an excuse for Michael to learn a valuable lesson. This isn’t an after school special, if the movie were honest in the end, Michael’s punishment would be teaching acting the rest of his life, drawing students to him via his well-earned infamy.

So, do I like Tootsie? Do I recommend Tootsie? Where do I come down on this movie when I have been so heavily critical of the star and the ending of the movie? I appreciate Dustin Hoffman’s performance for how boldly unique it is, truly unlike any leading man performance I have ever seen. It takes nerve not to settle in and play this character as likably difficult. That Hoffman played Michael not as a comic character within what is an unquestionably comic movie, but as a dramatic character in the midst of a sitcom farce, is a boldness I cannot  deny being impressed with.

Then there is Sidney Pollack’s exceptional direction. Tootsie is an exceedingly well-crafted film. Tootsie is smart and funny and though its female empowerment message is undermined by the nature of Dorothy as a deceptive character, it is quite a notable moment to see even a fake woman telling men to keep their hands off of her and leading other women to do the same. Then again, do women need a man in drag to tell them to stand up for themselves?

Perhaps we can qualify the compliment to Tootsie and say that the film was progressive for 1982 when the movie was released. For this moment, it’s rather patronizing to have a man in drag as a feminist hero, especially one for whom being in drag is not a statement but merely a scheme. Exceptionally well made but problematic, Tootsie is an essential piece of pop history because it is such a bizarre and unique milestone, one forged and ever-changing over time.

Movie Review The House Bunny

The House Bunny (2008)

Directed by Fred Wolf 

Written by Kristen Smith, Karen McCullah Lutz

Starring Anna Faris, Emma Stone, Kat Dennings, Colin Hanks 

Release Date August 22nd, 2008

Published August 21st, 2008 

Anna Faris is a terrifically funny actress. Her work in the first Scary Movie and a cameo in Lost In Translation each looked like star making performances but did not pan out. Faris did terrific work in the indie horror film May but was mostly relegated to small roles in other people's lame comedy efforts (Just Friends, My Super Ex-Girlfriend).

Now with the release of The House Bunny, Faris is getting her due as a leading lady. This vain attempt to recreate the pink hued magic of Legally Blonde is desperate and straining at times but in the end Faris rises above the lameness with a terrifically funny performance.

Shelly (Faris) has long dreamed of becoming a Playboy centerfold. After appearing in a few pictorials, including Girls of the GED, Shelly moved into the Playboy mansion and waited for Hef to make her a centerfold. On her 27th birthday, Shelly was given a huge, celeb filled party but the next morning she was out on her backside.

Kicked out of the mansion for being 27, that's like 50 something in bunny years, Shelly desperately needs a home. What luck then when she stumbles onto a college campus and discovers a misfit sorority house that desperately needs a house mother. The outcasts include Natalie (Emma Stone, Superbad), Mona (Kat Dennings, Charlie Bartlett) and Harmony (Catherine McPhee, American Idol).

The misfit girls and their shabby sorority house are about to be foreclosed on unless they can attract 30 new pledges in the next month. Shelly offers to help with makeovers for the girls and giant parties to attract attention. But, when Hef calls to give Shelly her dream centerfold, Miss November, will she leave her girls behind?

The House Bunny was directed by former SNL sketch writer Fred Wolf. In his directorial debut Wolf shows a near flawless command of the cliché. Wolf nails every well worn trope of the college outsider movie, tossing in a couple of rom-com clichés as well as Colin Hanks joins the cast as Shelly's mismatched love interest.

There is nothing new, original or slightly unfamiliar about The House Bunny. Thus, all of the film's appeal hinges on the star performance of Anna Faris. Lucky for those subjected to this tripe that Faris nearly makes the film watchable. With her stunning physicality, both comedic and otherwise, and her pitch perfect delivery of even the lamest blonde jokes, Faris manages the herculean feat of dragging laughs out from under the banalities.

The House Bunny is not insidiously bad, more innocuously bad. It's not good but not so bad that I can say I hate it. Anna Faris is such a winning presence, such a sunny personality that, for a time, I thought I could actually like the film. However, by the time we reached the obligatory speech to save the sorority house, I was off somewhere else in my mind.

Whether I was remembering an episode of The Office I had just watched or deciding whether to shop for groceries or go do laundry after the movie, I don't recall. Nor do I really recall much beyond the platitudes of The House Bunny.

Movie Review The Clones

The Clones (1973) 

Directed by Lamar Card, Paul Hunt 

Written by Steve Fisher

Starring Michael Greene, Gregory Sierra, Otis Young 

Release Date August 1973 

Published January 9th, 2019

With the new movie Replicas starring Keanu Reeves opening this weekend I thought a themed entry regarding cloning would be a good idea. Replicas is about a man repeatedly attempting to clone his dead family members and it put me in the mind of how movies have dealt with the issue of cloning. It turns out, aside from several classy documentaries on the issue, narrative fiction has mostly steered clear. 

For the most part, cloning has been relegated to the dregs of the sci-fi genre with few serious looks at the issue and plenty of schlocky nonsense. This brought me to the 1973 sci-fi flick The Clones, directed by Lamar Card and Paul Hunt and starring Michael Greene and Gregory Sierra. Why The Clones? Mostly because it was available on Amazon Prime but also because it had a strikingly surreal poster that you can see here, on the film’s IMDB page. 

The Clones stars Michael Greene as scientist Dr Gerard Appleby, Gerry to his friends and colleagues. We meet Gerry as someone is watching him work in his nondescript lab on something vaguely scientific that the film doesn’t bother to describe. Something goes wrong and Gerry is forced to flee for his life. The film is so clumsy about what has taken place that it only occurred to me as I write this that someone intended for Gerry to die in this lab accident. 

When Gerry does escape he sees some leaving in his car. When he makes it to the nearby security office for his lab facility, the guard is surprised to see him… again. According to the security guard, Gerry had just left driving Gerry’s car. When Gerry arrives back at his office on the campus of the Pacific Institute of Technology, his assistant tells him that he’d just been there and that he’d just called campus security before he’d left. She appears convinced that Gerry has sudden onset Alzheimer's. 

Finally, Gerry returns to the home of his girlfriend, Karen (Barbara Bergdorf), and has his most unusual encounter yet. In Karen’s kitchen is Gerry, or at least, a perfect copy of Gerry who has Gerry’s wallet, ID, memories and personality. Our Gerry flees the scene, recovering his car and wallet only to be stopped by police and taken to the campus security office where a pair of FBI agents are waiting to take him into custody for a crime they refuse to reveal. Gerry manages to escape and thus begins one of The Clones’ interminably long chase scenes. 

The Clones packs its 97 minute runtime with a great deal more running, jumping and chasing than anything to do with cloning. If you are thinking that you are going to watch The Clones and find out why the government suddenly wanted Gerry dead and replaced with a clone you can forget it. The filmmakers apparently believe that being as vague as possible is a substitute for drama. Unfortunately, the clumsy scripting makes it appear that they simply never had a clue how this story was to play out. 

Michael Greene isn’t exactly your classically handsome and charismatic leading man. He’s wiry and being forced to run for most of the movie, he looks kind of odd. We never really get a chance to connect with Gerry because the silly plot, rather than being about sci-fi and cloning, is more about action movie chases that are desperately overlong and silly. One has Gerry being chased through a swamp and has him slip his captors by hiding in a tree in plain sight. 

The final chase scene and shootout is set in an amusement park for reasons that only the filmmakers understand. This leads to an amazingly dumb payoff wherein the lead government good, played by future Hill Street Blues supporting cast member, Gregory Sierra, attempts to hunt Gerry down and avoid Gerry at the same time by boarding a rollercoaster. The director then shows us a sign that says ‘No Standing on the Ride’ but fails to pay off the scene with a clever decapitation. 

Then again, everything about The Clones is disappointing so why should that ending be anything other than a disappointment. Am I glad I spent time watching The Clones? Eh, it’s bad but in a somewhat enjoyable fashion. I was certainly laughing at the movie and not with it but I did have kind of a good time. I don’t recommend it but if you are, for some reason, looking for movies about cloning, The Clones is a movie that has clones in it. So there’s that. 

At the very least, The Clones is available at no extra charge to Amazon Prime members. 

Movie Review Super Fly (1972)

Super Fly (1972)

Directed by Gordon Parks

Written by Phillip Fenty 

Starring Ron O'Neal, Carl Lee, Julius W. Harris 

Release Date August 4th, 1972 

Published June 11th, 2018

With a newly modernized take on Gordon Parks’ provocative 1972 movie Superfly having arrived in theaters this past weekend, I took the opportunity to look back on Parks’ original film and came away shocked and very impressed. While the film’s low budget keeps it from rising to the level of great cinema, the pieces are in place, and Parks’ incredible direction stands out more today than it did when the film was written off as a low budget drive in movie in 1972.

Superfly may seem like a silly movie on the surface. It’s easy to dismiss Gordon Parks’ 1972 action drama about a drug dealer trying to escape the criminal life with one last big score as just a Blaxploitation movie, or a low budget, b-movie. People underestimated and discounted Gordon Parks throughout his brief career and often without giving his low budget movies the kind of chance that did go to bigger budget movies with white directors and white lead actors.

What was missed by dismissing Parks and his low budget, indie aesthetic was the authenticity and earnest quality of his work. Parks was unfairly and incorrectly accused of glorifying criminal life and making drug dealing look like a lifestyle worth pursuing. In reality, Superfly is a character piece about a criminal that carries an air of detachment about crime, similar to the approach taken by big budget movies like Francis Ford Coppola’s The Godfather. Obviously, Superfly is not as rich or epic as The Godfather but both movies are about charismatic criminals, one just happens to be high toned and big budget while the other is gritty and low budget.

Superfly stars Ron O’Neal as drug dealer Priest Youngblood. Priest has grown into a successful cocaine dealer through the liberal use of violence and a stake from his mentor, Scatter (Julius W. Harris). With his partner, Eddie (Carl Lee), he’s managed to gather $300,000 which is just enough to trade for more cocaine, a high quality product that they can then sell with the aim of making a cool million dollars, split 50/50.

The key to the scheme is getting the now retired Scatter to put them in touch with The Man. Unfortunately, what Priest and Eddie don’t know, ‘The Man’ happens to be a cop named Reardon and once you are in business with The Man, you are in business for good, or you go to jail. This puts Priest in a tough spot: work with The Man and risk getting arrested when he tries to get out of the game or walk away with nothing.

Ron O’Neal’s tough guy posturing is electric. O’Neal’s eyes are brilliantly convincing, his wheels are always turning and there always seems to be a whole other story going on behind those eyes. O’Neal oozes charisma and charm and this is likely what people who reacted negatively to Superfly were thinking when they came to believe the movie was a glorification of drug dealing. O’Neal’s off the charts charisma is mistaken as Parks’ glamor.

O’Neal’s Priest as a character indicates that he doesn’t think drug dealing is cool, it’s merely a means to an end. Racism pushed many black men of Priest’s age, and especially of his ambition, into the world of crime because they believed that legitimate avenues were not open to them because of race. It’s not a justification, it’s a character trait, not unlike the way members of the Corleone family believed that crime was the only avenue for an Italian in their corner of New York City.

Superfly is outsized and over the top in how it portrays Priest but it is not to a comic degree. Gordon Parks was in touch with the style and fashion of the streets of New York City and at times his Superfly feels like as much a fashion shoot as a movie. The fashion of Superfly influenced fashion among black culture in New York City for years but it was the drug dealers of New York that inspired Parks who then captured the zeitgeist.

You can argue whether you find it acceptable that Parks glorified the style of the street dealers and kingpins of New York City, but it’s hard to argue that it wasn’t authentic and that authenticity was Parks’ goal, not celebrating drug dealing. Portraying a drug dealer authentically, the high fashion and the low crime is no different and no less provocative than what Francis Ford Coppola did for Italian gangsters in The Godfather or what William Friedkin did for dirty cops in The French Connection.

The big difference between Superfly and those two Academy Award winners is a much lower budget and the lesser talented performers that come from that lower budget aesthetic. Parks’s style, the gritty cinematography, the authentic production design, are top notch given the restrictions that Parks was working under in terms of budget. The camera work is lively, the editing keeps the pace humming throughout and the script by Phillip Fenty is lively, colorful and clever.

Is Priest a sympathetic character? Yes and no, he’s a complicated character. Gordon Parks shows us everything about Priest, his dark and dangerous side and the frightened side that longs for a life away from drugs and criminality, the kind of life he believes only white people get to have. That’s the harsh undercurrent of Superfly, the one polarized audiences and critics in 1972, the presentation of Priest as neither hero or villain but as a character who believed, right or wrong, that his race drove him to be a criminal.

Parks’ provocative approach came from not judging Priest but observing him. Audiences prefer the simplicity of taking sides, of clear cut right and wrong and Priest was a criminal battling other criminals, battling corruption among people in power and using his wits to build his escape. The ending of Superfly is a thrilling bit of misdirection that Parks lays in beautifully without tipping his hand before the big reveal at the end that may make Priest seem heroic but is much more subversive and murky than a happy ending.

Movie Review Married to the Mob

Married to the Mob (1988) 

Directed by Jonathan Demme

Written by Barry Stugatz, Mark Burns 

Starring Michelle Pfeiffer, Matthew Modine, Alec Baldwin, Dean Stockwell, Oliver Platt

Release Date August 19th, 1988

Published August 18th, 2018 

Married to the Mob stars Michelle Pfeiffer in one of the best performances in her incredible career. As Angela DeMarco, the increasingly uncomfortable mob wife of ‘Cucumber’ Frank DeMarco (Alec Baldwin), Pfeiffer is the only sympathetic character in a universe of cartoonish killer criminals and duplicitous, weirdo FBI guys. Pfeiffer is the only element of Married to the Mob that makes complete sense.

Angela DeMarco wants out of the life of a mob wife. The bloom is off the rose of being married to a man who furnished their home with items that ‘fell off a truck.’ Angela is tired of the politics that come with being a mob wife which means spending a lot of time with fellow mob wives, a group of shrill, crispy-haired, harridans led by the Boss’s wife, Connie (Mercedes Ruehl), who demands that all mob wives follow her lead.

While Angela is plotting her escape from the mob world, FBI Agent Mike Downey (Mathew Modine) is looking for his way in so he can take down the whole thing. Mike and his partner Benitez (Oliver Platt) have been after mob boss Tony ‘The Tiger’ Russo for a while now and when things break down between Tony and Frank and Angela becomes a target of Tony’s affection, Mike has his way to get after the boss, if he can keep from falling for Angela himself.

Married to the Mob is a strange movie. The title is comically overlong and humorously ill-suited to the actual content of the film. The mob clichés are comically over the top. The Italian accents, the greasy hair, the mob lingo are right out of a parody. The story however, features mob killings that would feel at home in an episode of The Sopranos. Despite the comic accents, Dean Stockwell and Alec Baldwin play their characters with a seriousness at odds with the supposed comic nature of the movie.

Then there is Michelle Pfeiffer who plays Angela completely straight, with none of the comically over-arching touches that Mercedes Ruehl and the rest of the female cast, bring to their characters. When she begins the romantic plot with Matthew Modine’s FBI Agent, posing as a plumber while using Angela as bait to catch Tony, the romance has a light touch but she doesn’t play any single beat with the comedy that director Jonathan Demme appears to be directing her toward.

Modine’s character as well is really strange. He appears to be a comic character early on as he and Oliver Platt dip into strange banter, they have a weird slow motion high-five that appears for no real good reason. Then there is the bizarre glimpse of his home life where he has a Pee-Wee Herman style set up to help him put on his suit. It kind of fits the bizarre comic tone of Married to the Mob but the joke only serves to make him seem like a weirdo and not a romantic hero.

Everyone in Married to the Mob appears to be doing their own bit of business. The accents, the hairstyles, the odd quirks, every character seems to take a moment to demonstrate an odd trait and none of it appears to fit either in the comedy that the movie kind of is and the mob drama that the movie also kind of is. All of that said, these touches give the film personality but where that personality fits in in terms of genre is a mystery that keeps the film from greatness.

There are great moments throughout Married to the Mob and Jonathan Demme is a fine director who brings personality to the film but he can’t seem to decide whether we are to take the film seriously or laugh at it. Characters like Mercedes Ruehl are playing straight comedy while Dean Stockwell, who was nominated for an Academy Award for this performance, and Michelle Pfeiffer are taking the film relatively seriously.

The film is a tonal mess. Comedy, violence, mob drama and mob comedy, Married to the Mob is filled with personality but it’s a Sybil-esque personality in which we never know which movie is on screen from scene to scene. I don’t have a huge dislike for Married to the Mob but I can’t fully embrace the movie, outside of Michelle Pfeiffer’s star-turn, because it is such a whiplash of weird shifts in tone.

Married to the Mob was released 30 years ago this weekend.

Movie Review Straw Dogs (1971)

Straw Dogs (1971)

Directed by Sam Peckinpah

Written by David Zelag Goodman, Sam Peckinpah

Starring Dustin Hoffman, Susan George

Release Date December 22nd, 1972

Published September 12th, 2011

"Straw Dogs," a remake of the controversial 1971 Sam Peckinpah thriller, opens in theaters nationwide September 16, 2011. Many questions surround this remake from director Rod Lurie, the most potent being whether or not the new "Straw Dogs" can stir up audiences the way the original did 40 years ago. Have audiences become so desensitized to violence that we can no longer be shaken the way our parents were when "Straw Dogs" took the violence of the tumultuous '60s and '70s and planted it squarely in the upper middle class home of a young everyman and his beautiful wife, saying, essentially, this could happen to you?

" Straw Dogs " starred Dustin Hoffman, one of our finest actors and, at the time of the filming, one of the biggest stars in Hollywood due to his other controversial works "The Graduate" and the X-Rated Best Picture-winner "Midnight Cowboy." Hoffman's David was a timid man who, when forced to step up and defend his young wife Amy (played by Susan George), failed repeatedly.

David and Amy have moved to a cottage in the English countryside where Amy grew up. There, a number of people from her past, including a jealous ex-boyfriend, are waiting with judgmental eyes for her new husband. Things begin badly when men doing work in their home harass Amy and David refuses to do anything about it.

Instead, David attempts to befriend the workers, who continuously humiliate and poke fun at him. Eventually, the workers invite David to go hunting with them. Leaving him stranded in the woods, the workers return to David's home, where the former flame proceeds to rape Amy.

Peckinpah's shooting of the rape scene was debated at the time and remains the film's most controversial element. The stomach of many an audience member turned as Amy's resistance to her rape slowly turned to pleasure, the rapist being a man she's been with before; she seems to give into him and begin enjoying it. Things turn dark again, however, when a second man enters the scene. Amy never tells David about the rape. The film devolves toward an ultra-violent conclusion not because David is finally ready to defend his wife, not because he is seeking revenge over the rape, but because of a complex series of misunderstandings.

Feminist scholars have argued that Peckinpah's depiction of Amy's rape was his revenge against the character's feminist bent and the way the character repeatedly emasculates Hoffman's David. Peckinpah was often criticized as a misogynist for his depiction of women onscreen.

Remake director Rod Lurie has even taken shots at Peckinpah's alleged misogyny.

In an interview with the Brandeis University newspaper, Brandeis Now, Lurie said, "I was never enchanted with Peckinpah's philosophies on human behavior or his attitude toward women. I don't want to talk too deeply about that because he isn't here to defend his name, but it certainly came into the context of my making the film."

Does this imply Lurie's "Straw Dogs" will tone down the violence of the original? At the very least we can expect a new context and perspective on what takes place. Lurie's "Straw Dogs" is rated R but, unlike Peckinpah's film -- which was plagued by a ratings battle over its violent content -- the remake has been met with no such controversy.

Which brings us back around to my original question: Can the new "Straw Dogs" stir audiences the way the original did 40 years ago? It depends on a number of factors, not least of which is how much Lurie has shifted the context of what takes place in the film and how graphically the violence is depicted. Peckinpah's high shock factor played as big a role in the impact of "Straw Dogs" on audiences as did his intent to bring violence into the well-tended homes of the upper middle class. 40 years later can a new "Straw Dogs," or any other film for that matter, reach audiences the way "Straw Dogs" did in 1971?

We will find out how audiences take to the new "Straw Dogs" when the film arrives in theaters nationwide Friday, September 16, 2011.